A special savings for anybody who orders Focus Formula either through our website or one of our facebook links. Enter the promo code: SAV20FOCUS to receive a 20% discount and free shipping on any size order.

ADHD and the Meaning of Evidence

By BARRY TURNER BA MPhil There are some people that are denying that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder exists.

BY BARRY TURNER BA MPhil

There are some people that are denying that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder exists. They are accused of being irresponsible", default", causing the condition
to be under diagnosed, and even causing the sufferers of this disease to
"unwittingly self medicate with illegal drugs or alcohol". If it were not for
the fact that the explosion in ADHD diagnosis and treatment with stimulants such
as Ritalin (Methylphenidate) represents the greatest medical catastrophe since
Thalidomide, these statements would be laughable.

Do the makers of such statements really believe that the millions taking
Ecstasy (MDMA), and other illegal substances that are closely related to Ritalin
(methylphenidate), at thousands of night-clubs every weekend, are "self
medicating" because they have not been "properly diagnosed". How can a "medical
scientist" say that a "disease" is under diagnosed (based on what data?).

There is absolutely no reason why those opposed to the myth of ADHD as a
disease, need to justify that position. The matter is clear. It is for those who
maintain the position that ADHD is a disease to adduce evidence of it. That
evidence must be in the form of data collected in experimental conditions that
can be validated by objective repeat studies.

Evidence is made up of three elements. The autoptic evidence which relates to
material or physical evidence such as chemical residues or fingerprints. Direct
evidence, which is that proposed by a witness or an expert, and circumstantial
evidence, the weakest form of all. What do the proponents of ADHD have in the
way of evidence from these sources

Autoptic evidence is perceived by the senses and is commonly called 'real'
evidence. In disease this evidence is always present. In carcinomas, biopsies
will reveal evidence of cell mutation. In cardiovascular disease necrotic muscle
tissue, arterial plaques or calcified arteries can be observed. In infectious
diseases the pathogens causing the infections can be collected and identified.
The evidence is there for all medical professionals to see. Not so with ADHD.

Direct evidence is that which an eyewitness or expert describes from their
own first hand observations. What do the experts say? ADHD may be (may be)
genetic: no one has extended this to its logical and necessary conclusion by
identifying which chromosome has this defective gene and why the defect is
there. Blue eyes, incidentally, are genetically determined. Does that make them
a disease?

ADHD may (again), be due to biochemical imbalance: Not one piece of evidence
exists to indicate this. Indeed, where biochemical imbalances are suggested,
there is again a signal lack of empirical evidence to support the theory.
(Empirical means that it can be repeated, tested, verified.)

ADHD may be (and again) hereditary: Just as in quoting spurious "genetics",
this is meaningless at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Criminal
behavior is also hereditary. Criminal fathers more often than not are followed
by criminal sons (and daughters). The behavior is learned, and just as musical
parents produce musical children and enthusiastic sports loving parents produce
sporting offspring, this is no indicator of genetics or hereditary cause. It
should be noted that Chinese children have a propensity to grow up speaking
Chinese if they grow up in China. Those that have been adopted by western
parents and taken to America, for instance, have not as yet spontaneously begun
to speak Chinese because it is hereditary or genetic for them to do so.
Language, like behavior, is learned.

What about the weakest form of evidence, circumstantial? Ah, well here at
last the ADHD proponents have something! Children misbehave and run about
wildly, they are defiant and get bored easily. Er… yes, they always have done.
The circumstances of this "aberrent" behavior suggest to these ADHD observers
that something is wrong - the child must be "ill". It perhaps should be put to
them that the children are fine, it is they that are suffering from
"Observational Inaccuracy and Distortion Disorder".

What about the famous suggestion that these children have "different" or
smaller brains? Well, the studies that came up with that theory look good until
you spend five minutes reading them. After five minutes the reader will notice
that the "research cohort" is in fact mixed, some children on medication, some
not. Some of the "normal" children are several years older than those with the
smaller brains. The statistics invite the well known scientific and legal
observation, "correlates are not causes". This is the kind of science that
concludes that oranges are different to avocados based on the fact that oranges
are less green than avocados. How much more enlightened these "scientists" would
become if they actually tasted the fruit! The language of the ADHD lobby is a
wonderful indicator of how exact the science is that created it. "ADHD may be…"
"ADHD is probably…" "Studies indicate…" "Scientists believe...". Not one piece
of evidence exists to categorically place this condition in any classification
of diseases.

The three kinds of evidence mentioned above are the categories of legal
evidence. They are the material that decides the case for or against, guilty or
not guilty. There is one that has been missed out.

Hearsay evidence is that which is reported second or third hand. It’s value
to probandum (actual proof), is severely limited as it cannot be tested by the
normal methods employed to examine the other kinds of tangible evidence. The
person that relates it does not know the facts, only the facts as they were
reported to them. Just like the Connors rating for ADHD.

Little Johnny is hyperactive", says the teacher.

Give him Ritalin", says the doctor.

Little Jimmy can't concentrate on his schoolwork", says the teacher.

Give him Adderall", says the doctor.

Little Sally misbehaves in class", says the teacher.

Give her Concerta", says the doctor.

How many doctors prescribe insulin to patients because their neighbor reports
that they have seen them drinking lots of water and heard that their feet often
tingle?

If in the future the proponents of ADHD find themselves indicted for
inflicting this scourge onto the world, they will surely demand that their
accusers bring strong evidence before they are convicted. Rest assured they
would complain about rights abuses if they were convicted on circumstantial and
hearsay evidence. What an irony that such poor evidence is sufficient to
convince them they are right now -- so right in fact, that on hearsay and
circumstantial evidence alone they will give addictive and dangerous medicine to
children -- some of whom are barely out of infancy Those of us who oppose this
outrageous abuse of medical science do not need to justify our position! We do
not need to produce evidence that ADHD does NOT exist any more than we need to
produce evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. The proponents need to answer
these questions.

o What is the etiology of ADHD?
o Where is the hard evidence?
o objective, scientific and empirically validated)
o If it is actually a disease, why is no one looking for a CURE?

In the lack of coherent answers to these questions, ADHD is a belief system
only, like believing in fairies or Santa Claus -- not a disease or any other
kind of medical condition.

Copyright (c) Barry Turner BA MPhil

The author of this article is a Lecturer in Legal Studies in Forensic Science
in the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, UK, Criminal
Litigator and Mental Health Law Consultant.